Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Papas1982]

If I say something to you and you tell me your offended, I’ve no right to say you’re not, I can explain my intent and you can or cannot accept it, I’ve still got no right to tell you how to feel.

I don't agree at all. Not everything said is offensive. I don't see how someone's right to choose what's offended then overrules someone's right to say something they don't believe is offensive. Within reason.

I'm not talking rascism which for want of a better phrase is usually more black and white. But lots of other things can offend someone which is as much their issue as it is the persons saying it.

I Certainly wouldn't apologise for offending someone if I truly believed what I'd said was innocent. Especially if I'd explained my reasoning.

 

[Papas1982]

It leaves the old question - who deems something offensive?

The term in question for example for regularly used on mainstream telly - Alf Garnet I believe used it a lot but it’s now appears to be on a list that mainstream media won’t use and people have lost their jobs when using it.

So what or who defines it as offensive ?

The general consensus imo.
Whats said and the intent are the biggest indicators imo. Lots of things can be said with no malice whatsoever. Yet someone can overhear and claim its offensive when they have no idea of context.

I certainly wouldn't pay attention to anyone who told me not to say something as it could be offensive to someone else.

 

[Old Skier]

I enjoyed going to the monthly Welfare Officers meeting at Catterick Garrison just to not an Infantry Regiment.

I enjoyed going to the monthly Welfare Officers meeting at Catterick Garrison just to realise how lucky I was to just be dealing with an Engineer Sqn and not an Infantry Regiment.

Grunt Regiment, now that is offensive

 

[Hobbit]

Firstly, I've been to enough meets and golf clubs to make a very well informed decision on the likely demographic of a UK golf forum. That demographic have been trying to dictate to the rest of the what to say, act, think for what, 500 years now? So I think it's a fair comment. If you were offended, then sorry 👍🏻

Secondly, the few shouldn't decide. But they should be listened to. The few have been ignored for centuries. If theyre offended, we should have learnt by now to sit up and listen. I think we're in agreement here.

The rest of the post I wholeheartedly agree with, although I probably put a bit more weight to what a word means today rather than its origin, because as you say things change and i try to live in the present.

I did say in a later post that I don't believe Tashy in any way meant offence. But that doesn't mean it shouldnt be highlighted and discussed. If one person reading this thinks slightly longer next time, then great. If not, I'll personally continue offer the same viewpoint because I *think* in doing so I am doing the right thing.

Not offended by it so much but then maybe as possibly being equated to it. For many, many years I was the rebellious youngster in the club. Hell, I almost got lynched for arguing for the vote at an AGM for women and equal access at weekends over 30 years ago. Nowadays its your battle, not mine.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I don't agree at all. Not everything said is offensive. I don't see how someone's right to choose what's offended then overrules someone's right to say something they don't believe is offensive. Within reason.

I'm not talking rascism which for want of a better phrase is usually more black and white. But lots of other things can offend someone which is as much their issue as it is the persons saying it.

I Certainly wouldn't apologise for offending someone if I truly believed what I'd said was innocent. Especially if I'd explained my reasoning.

Never ever said you have no right to say it, how would you know the person is offended without saying it.

If however you had had “a slip of the tongue” or the persons reason for being offended is in your opinion rubbish, then again don’t apologise, no one has said you should.

But I genuinely believe any normal decent person would avoid offending someone on purpose and if they accidentally did, then if both people are civil and listen to each other the situation wouldn’t require apologies just a sense of understanding.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Grunt Regiment, now that is offensive

View attachment 27391

Geo mate, the Laundry went further forward than us.

 

[Hobbit]

Never ever said you have no right to say it, how would you know the person is offended without saying it.

If however you had had “a slip of the tongue” or the persons reason for being offended is in your opinion rubbish, then again don’t apologise, no one has said you should.

But I genuinely believe any normal decent person would avoid offending someone on purpose and if they accidentally did, then if both people are civil and listen to each other the situation wouldn’t require apologies just a sense of understanding.

There's a semantic in there that perhaps needs highlighting. You could say, "sorry for offending you." That doesn't mean you've changed your opinion, only that you recognise that in that instance it offended them.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The general consensus imo.
Whats said and the intent are the biggest indicators imo. Lots of things can be said with no malice whatsoever. Yet someone can overhear and claim its offensive when they have no idea of context.

I certainly wouldn't pay attention to anyone who told me not to say something as it could be offensive to someone else.

That’s 2 different things though, the 1st is knowing your audience.

The 2nd could be a mate trying to stop you looking an ar5e.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The general consensus imo.
Whats said and the intent are the biggest indicators imo. Lots of things can be said with no malice whatsoever. Yet someone can overhear and claim its offensive when they have no idea of context.

I certainly wouldn't pay attention to anyone who told me not to say something as it could be offensive to someone else.

So if we go back to the original term that was used - the general consensus in the public is that the term is offensive in both describing the person and the restaurant/take away etc and it’s use is frowned upon in the public domain. People will say it to each other but they won’t say it within the take away etc so that should question the word

Now people will automatically start to say “well does that mean I can’t say - let’s go for an Indian” - but that’s nonsense because it’s an Indian restaurant just like you really should be saying “ going for a Chinese or Thai or Italian “ etc etc

The initial comment wasn’t meant in a offensive way but the term itself is deemed offensive now and has been for a significant period - especially in the public eye which this is - I’m not offended by the word because it doesn’t affect me and I suspect no one at the moment is offended it was just pointing out that the term is deemed offensive

 

[Hobbit]

So if we go back to the original term that was used - the general consensus in the public is that the term is offensive in both describing the person and the restaurant/take away etc and it’s use is frowned upon in the public domain. People will say it to each other but they won’t say it within the take away etc so that should question the word

Now people will automatically start to say “well does that mean I can’t say - let’s go for an Indian” - but that’s nonsense because it’s an Indian restaurant just like you really should be saying “ going for a Chinese or Thai or Italian “ etc etc

The initial comment wasn’t meant in a offensive way but the term itself is deemed offensive now and has been for a significant period - especially in the public eye which this is - I’m not offended by the word because it doesn’t affect me and I suspect no one at the moment is offended it was just pointing out that the term is deemed offensive

Its also different in different countries. I remember a headline in an Aussie newspaper about an upcoming test match against Pakistan. The headline was "lets go ...... bashing." You can fill in the gap. I was horrified but the Aussies I spoke to just couldn't see it. In fact, one of them said to me, "you call us Aussies, and we call you Poms. What wrong with....?" If you look at the root of the words, just what is wrong with it?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Its also different in different countries. I remember a headline in an Aussie newspaper about an upcoming test match against Pakistan. The headline was "lets go ...... bashing." You can fill in the gap. I was horrified but the Aussies I spoke to just couldn't see it. In fact, one of them said to me, "you call us Aussies, and we call you Poms. What wrong with....?" If you look at the root of the words, just what is wrong with it?

Yes - it’s one that is just a shortened from the country name but I think that’s a historic slur and it’s been used as a slur since day one. And then there is all the names used for Welsh , Scottish and Irish over the years. And the Aussies certainly have their word for the Aborigines

 

[USER1999]

Oddly, I do have some Chinese friends, and yes, they are Chinese, living in China, and I have not tried Chinky on them. I don't think they would have a scooby what I was on about. It is not a word I would use anyway.

As an aside, they are flat out racist though. They come out with stuff the KKK haven't said for 50 years.

Hard to feel offended for them.

 

[Blue in Munich]

There is so much old telly now that gets “dubbed” over lots of offensive words - I guess it even happens in The Dambusters and i suppose there are some programs or films that are no longer broadcast because of the language- Blazing Saddles for example ?

No it doesn't happen in The Dambusters Phil; they publish an apology in politically correct terms at the start of the film and then the dog is referred to by the name that Guy Gibson gave it.

 

[BubbaP]

Expect we have a few days of people interpreting the EU elections in various ways to look forward to 🤔

 

[Deleted member 18645]

Fantastic quote from one of the Lib Dem idiots last night in which he stated because more people voted for them, the Greens and other "Remain" parties, Brexit should be cancelled.

Err we've had a vote on that already and Brexit won. They really only want democracy when it suits them.

 

[chrisd]

Fantastic quote from one of the Lib Dem idiots last night in which he stated because more people voted for them, the Greens and other "Remain" parties, Brexit should be cancelled.

Err we've had a vote on that already and Brexit won. They really only want democracy when it suits them.

Quite early on last evening Alistair Campbell was trying to make the case that Remain had won by adding various votes together - he could have had no idea why those Conservative and Labour voters voted the way they did and there really cant construe it as a remain vote!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Quite early on last evening Alistair Campbell was trying to make the case that Remain had won by adding various votes together - he could have had no idea why those Conservative and Labour voters voted the way they did and there really cant construe it as a remain vote!

I guess it depends on which way you look at it -

Brexit Party have 28 seats

Lib Dem’s have 15

Labour have 10

Green have 7

Tories have 3

Plaid Cymru have 1

Scotland and NI yet to declare

And I believe counting the votes - it’s

41% anti Brexit

35% Pro Brexit

14 % Labour

10% Tory


But the turnout is so low I suspect it’s all irrelevant with people from all sides fed up with it all

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48403131

 

[Hobbit]

Fantastic quote from one of the Lib Dem idiots last night in which he stated because more people voted for them, the Greens and other "Remain" parties, Brexit should be cancelled.

Err we've had a vote on that already and Brexit won. They really only want democracy when it suits them.

Quite early on last evening Alistair Campbell was trying to make the case that Remain had won by adding various votes together - he could have had no idea why those Conservative and Labour voters voted the way they did and there really cant construe it as a remain vote!

I find it so disappointing that MPs still treat the electorate as though they are thick. They take half truths and spin them into big fat lies.

I'll happily concede that the vast majority of votes that went to the LibDems/Greens/SNP are votes for Remain. And that all the votes for the Brexit Party are for Leave. Beyond that there will be people who voted for their long time fav party, and those who perhaps want to Leave but wouldn't touch Farage with a barge pole. I wonder how many people didn't vote at all because they're either fed up with politicians as a whole or have no interest in the European Project?

Beyond the obvious Remain/Leave parties you'd need a crystal ball to get anywhere near an accurate prediction of the split.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I find it so disappointing that MPs still treat the electorate as though they are thick. They take half truths and spin them into big fat lies.

I'll happily concede that the vast majority of votes that went to the LibDems/Greens/SNP are votes for Remain. And that all the votes for the Brexit Party are for Leave. Beyond that there will be people who voted for their long time fav party, and those who perhaps want to Leave but wouldn't touch Farage with a barge pole. I wonder how many people didn't vote at all because they're either fed up with politicians as a whole or have no interest in the European Project?

Beyond the obvious Remain/Leave parties you'd need a crystal ball to get anywhere near an accurate prediction of the split.

Bitterly disappointing Brian, but absolutely no surprise. Their arrogance is unbelievable.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I find it so disappointing that MPs still treat the electorate as though they are thick. They take half truths and spin them into big fat lies.

I'll happily concede that the vast majority of votes that went to the LibDems/Greens/SNP are votes for Remain. And that all the votes for the Brexit Party are for Leave. Beyond that there will be people who voted for their long time fav party, and those who perhaps want to Leave but wouldn't touch Farage with a barge pole. I wonder how many people didn't vote at all because they're either fed up with politicians as a whole or have no interest in the European Project?

Beyond the obvious Remain/Leave parties you'd need a crystal ball to get anywhere near an accurate prediction of the split.

Slightly pedantic, Campbell is a journalist and has never been an MP.